Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is nothing wrong with government intervention. Just depends on if it is stealing from working people and creating less freedom in the future when government is in control. Teh public option will become the only option via the new reforms, new controls and new taxes to keep up with it. If there was a public option that didnt require taxes via the people who were using it and had charity funding and or other inventive ways of raising money I think that would be closer to free choice. But that wont happen because washington is full of people who believe programs are solutions and taxes are wondeful. Reality and the history of this govenrment and every program becomes nothing but another way for the government to control choice sooner or later. Government can be a place to give people options but it all depends on what idealogy is in washington every 4 years. Which is why I question if they really should be in charge of anything really important. Libertarian for 4 years then we could have socialist the next and good luck removing the socialism creates nothing but dependents.
If you beat down Reagan enough, then everything else looks like a walk in the garden. Why are libs so obsessed with Reagan? Please go back and have another glass of that Obama-Aid. Leave Reagan alone.
No, that's not what "the founding fathers" believed.
In any case, if you had read the article you would know--as though everybody doesn't already know--that deregulation by the government resulted in a lower standard of living for most Americans, as well as the economic mess we are now in.
I think maybe someone didn't live through the Carter years.
I should have expected the deregulation hobgoblin to rear its ugly head today since the polls are so bad for the Democrats. Perhaps you tell me what "deregulation" you are referring to. I know it's not the repeal of Glass-Steigall because Clinton signed that.
Unless you're robbed, your house burns, the country is attacked, scientific study is needed, highways need to be built, you want an educated populace, etc.
Quote:
- we should be free to make our own choices, and live our own lives.
You are free to make your own choices and live your own life. What a silly thing to say.
Quote:
It's what the founding fathers believed in.
The Founders are dead. It's not the 18th century anymore, and the Founders set up GOVERNMENT; they didn't "set up" anarchy.
There is nothing wrong with government intervention. Just depends on if it is stealing from working people and creating less freedom in the future when government is in control. Teh public option will become the only option via the new reforms, new controls and new taxes to keep up with it. If there was a public option that didnt require taxes via the people who were using it and had charity funding and or other inventive ways of raising money I think that would be closer to free choice. But that wont happen because washington is full of people who believe programs are solutions and taxes are wondeful. Reality and the history of this govenrment and every program becomes nothing but another way for the government to control choice sooner or later. Government can be a place to give people options but it all depends on what idealogy is in washington every 4 years. Which is why I question if they really should be in charge of anything really important.
Let me ask you some things. Have you ever needed the police? Does it upset you that private investigators cost an arm and a leg? Have you ever heard anyone complain about choice when it concerns the police? Do you think it would be wise to abolish the police and let people personally pay for their own crime investigations, case by case?
Quote:
Libertarian for 4 years then we could have socialist the next and good luck removing the socialism creates nothing but dependents.
Stop with the "socialism" already.
If you read the article, you'd understand that working people haven't made any gains over the last eight years. That's the market creating dependency, not "socialism."
Typical right-wing response. IMMEDIATELY, you politicize it. The content is irrelevant. What's important is that it comes from a liberal. From that realization on, you're not interested.
Reagan WAS bad, in terms of domestic policy, if not foreign policy. Very bad, indeed. And TODAY'S GOP is full of lunatics, although that hasn't always been the case.
I'm a liberal. Probably left of liberal. But I still read conservative articles. For example, I think George Will has written some observant and astute pieces over the years (although he's dead wrong on climate change). It's idiotic to reject a point of view based merely on the writer's political affiliation. The content is what is important.
Crazy old Reagan read the bills he signed. What a nut!
If you beat down Reagan enough, then everything else looks like a walk in the garden. Why are libs so obsessed with Reagan? Please go back and have another glass of that Obama-Aid. Leave Reagan alone.
I'm not going to speak for the libs. But this moderate conservative, after voting for Reagan in 1984 like most others, knew that he'd been had by the middle of Reagan's second term.
The Reagan era was the beginning of the end of America as we knew it and yet many poor slobs remain fast asleep and cheering on the wealthy as they continue to pillage this country.
Just to be clear - I am NOT saying America's demise was Reagan's intent. His mistake was the naivete often talked about by wife Nancy. He "got government off the backs" of the rich and trusted that they would do the right thing.
I'm not going to speak for the libs. But this moderate conservative, after voting for Reagan in 1984 like most others, knew that he'd been had by the middle of Reagan's second term.
The Reagan era was the beginning of the end of America as we knew it and yet many poor slobs remain fast asleep and cheering on the wealthy as they continue to pillage this country.
Just to be clear - I am NOT saying America's demise was Reagan's intent. His mistake was the naivete often talked about by wife Nancy. He "got government off the backs" of the rich and trusted that they would do the right thing.
They didn't.
I'm a moderate independent, and I agree with you completely. I'm amazed at the brainwashed masses who believe the market is inherently good. It's almost as if they are making a moral judgement that the market is benevolent. It makes me gag when I hear how these poor rich people are giving us jobs out of the goodness of their hearts. I don't know where this idea comes from as history contradicts it, and indeed, it's contradictory to human behavior.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
